The umpiring has changed. Not so many picky free kicks, it's finally coming good.

Only glaringly wrong free kick decision I recall went in our favour (a holding the ball to McKenzie). You notice the umpiring a lot less when winning though. I learned a while ago that I'm unable to be objective about umpiring because my mood regarding the direction of the game influences how much poor umpiring decisions stick in my memory.

at least one major change - no KB! Thank god for that.

I think the umps are doing a much better job.

I base that on nuetral games I watch, not Melbourne games.

when the ball was within 10 meters of Marc Murphy he seemed to get a free kick, protected species and a half that bloke and he still got absolutely embarrassed by Chunk Jones

  On 12/04/2014 at 10:03, Nasher said:

Only glaringly wrong free kick decision I recall went in our favour (a holding the ball to McKenzie). You notice the umpiring a lot less when winning though. I learned a while ago that I'm unable to be objective about umpiring because my mood regarding the direction of the game influences how much poor umpiring decisions stick in my memory.

that is true but I saw a few times when I thought we would get a free kick against us, not an obvious one but In the other seasons it was given, great to see it relaxed some what

I've been saying for years if they only pay the really obvious ones then umpiring will be far more consistent. As soon as one umpire pays a soft decision then they need to pay every other one for the rest of the game which isn't easy to do.

They are still white maggots

I agree about only paying the obvious ones. But I'd like to see them change a couple of interpretations:

• When holding the ball is paid against a player at the bottom when the ball is being held to their legs and there is a pack of players on top of them so there is nothing they can do, don't pay holding the ball. Instead, pay holding the man against the players 'who tackle the tackler' if we want to stop the multi-play scrummage. I don't understand why a third person is allowed to hold the tackler, so ping that.
  
• "Shepherding in the ruck" has been paid the last couple of weeks in poor decisions imo. Both times there was phyiscal body contact between ruckmen, then one ruck tapped it down. Shepherding surely only occurs if you are holding one person out so a third man up can get the ball. This should however, be paid in marking contests more often too, when someone is stopped from contesting a mark by an opposition player.
  
• The 'in the back' marking decisions where the player holds them out with their body (i.e. the toumpas one in round 1), should not be paid
  
• This 'accidental head clash' rule is the pits. It is a contact sport for god's sake. I don't want injuries, I don't want people cleaned up with excessive force or without expectation of contact (off the ball), but surely if a minor head clash results in a cut eye that isn't worth 2 weeks? Surely if the tackler/bumper has a duty of care to protect the player, the player has a duty of care to protect themselves by turning sideways and bracing for contact etc.

Holding the ball rule is still broken.

there doesnt seem to be a push in the back rule anymore.

playmakers from all clubs must hate this trend of having a goliath lay on your back and there is no reward.

I was surprised at the McKenzie decision. That's must be what it would be like if you were a Geelong supporter down at Simmonds.

  On 12/04/2014 at 15:24, deanox said:

I agree about only paying the obvious ones. But I'd like to see them change a couple of interpretations:

• When holding the ball is paid against a player at the bottom when the ball is being held to their legs and there is a pack of players on top of them so there is nothing they can do, don't pay holding the ball. Instead, pay holding the man against the players 'who tackle the tackler' if we want to stop the multi-play scrummage. I don't understand why a third person is allowed to hold the tackler, so ping that.

Totally agree. I've been moaning about this for a long time Pay frees against players tackling packs and things will open up and we won't be watching as much rugby-liek games.

Holding the ball should only be paid if the tackler lays a legitimate tackle and the guy with the ball makes no genuine effort to free it -- all too often the poor bugger who goes in and gets the ball has multiple players in / on his back.

IMO in the back should always trump holding the ball.

I guess the maggots enjoy the "theatre" of the HTB signal. Maybe they should introduce some flambouyant signal for in the back, to amuse the maggots and restore some balance.

Also I saw last night in the Cats' game a HTB given against the guy at the bottom of the pack with the tackler clearly holding the ball in with both hands to the guy on the ground, who had no grasp on the ball at all. Ridiculous !!!

  On 12/04/2014 at 10:08, Clint Bizkit said:

I've been saying for years if they only pay the really obvious ones then umpiring will be far more consistent. As soon as one umpire pays a soft decision then they need to pay every other one for the rest of the game which isn't easy to do.

Sports are always better when the borderline fouls/frees are left alone, and AFL is no exception.

It's been a lot better this year with the focus being on the real free kicks (true holding the ball, tripping, sliding) and no more stupid free kicks (incredulous push in the back calls, or holds in the making contest).

Still not perfect - ruck contests and players having the ball held to them are two that come to mind - but it's a lot better.

One thing that may be helping is that umpires are now doing games in teams, with trios being allocated each week. That's how the NFL does it, and it lets umpires develop working relationships with each other, so that they know what each other are like. Reduces McBurney-style off the ball frees.

Something I can never understand.

If you're run down from behind (e.g. the Cripps & JKH situation), seems that you're pinged as soon as you're touched, even if you manage to get a boot or hand to the ball (OK, Cripps didn't, but I've seen quite a few where the player getting run down did dispose of it OK).

But if you're running at the tackler, decide to take him on and get nailed (e.g. the Yarran & Spencer situation), it's just about always a ball-up.

I'm not aware of any part of the HTB rule about this; it just seems to be how it's interpreted.

Totally agree with the poster who says it's broken.

I have to agree that its much nicer to watch without so many frees called. It feels good to be on the winning side of marginal/incorrect decisions though... For so long we've been shafted by stupid decisions

I remember one play from the HBF when Bail seemed to ride somone into the ground on their back, it wasn't called and he then managed to break clear and bring it down to our forward line for a goal. Another strange decision was the Warnock/Spencer jumper punches. I don't see how Warnock could be singled out for that one, they both through just as many punches.

Today they were inconsistent and unfair and it was frustrating, especially that number 11. Needed to be chinned.

  On 20/04/2014 at 14:25, nekk minnit said:

Today they were inconsistent and unfair and it was frustrating, especially that number 11. Needed to be chinned.

Slightly off the topic but it was strange that umpire Leigh Fisher, an ex St Kilda player, was one of the umps in the Saints clash with the Bombers. One would think it would be prudent to give him non Saints games. I am not suggesting he would be dishonest but ................ what would the opposition supporters think! Actually though it could work against his old team. I have umpired high school footy games and I have been told on many occasions that the number of free kicks paid to the opposition was far greater than to my school. A case of not wanting to be seen as biased.

I get just as annoyed by questionable umpiring decisions as anyone else, but we had a few go our way as well. The umpires decisions did not change the outcome of the game.

  On 20/04/2014 at 15:14, Bobby McKenzie said:

Slightly off the topic but it was strange that umpire Leigh Fisher, an ex St Kilda player, was one of the umps in the Saints clash with the Bombers. One would think it would be prudent to give him non Saints games. I am not suggesting he would be dishonest but ................ what would the opposition supporters think! Actually though it could work against his old team. I have umpired high school footy games and I have been told on many occasions that the number of free kicks paid to the opposition was far greater than to my school. A case of not wanting to be seen as biased.

Yeah, I thought the same thing when watching, especially given he would have played with all of the older guys still playing.

As for the umpiring yesterday, it was back to its frustrating worst. And the less said about the goal review the better. The system is actually quite hilariously bad.

The current philosophy of holding the ball is just wrong and against the spirit of the game. If you try to be first to the ball and get pinged a second later and dont pretend to handball thats holding the ball, but how many times yesterday would a player make a huge effort to chase and dispose of the ball yet not get penalised?

The Ablett free kick was an absolute farce. But what was just as bad was that goal-line decision for the Suns. The replay with the top left screen clearly showed the ball took a massive deflection once passing the Suns fists.

I'm also not a fan this year of pinging a bloke when there are about 4 blokes all trying to get the ball, with the umpire saying you've gotta try to get it out. How about they try and get it out with another 4 guys after the ball.

It looks like they are starting to reward the tackler again, after most of this year, they wave their arms in the air like muppets. About time incorrect disposal was brought back in to the game.

The umpires were poor yesterday, both ways. They let it go for most of the time, but made one bad call another way, and seemed to rectify it with a similarly bad call the other way. Melbourne was given 2 or 3 gimmies in the middle in the third quarter. That Abblett free kick was very poor. You don't call that. Fundamental tagging tactics and Jordie was using his forearm to block Abblett. That's fair game. Not much else he can do. To see Jetta get his head ripped off right in front of the ump for nothing to be called was very frustrating. People started leaving at that point. I don't blame them.

That goal review was also a joke. It is very clear the ball angle changed when it went past the first. I called it when they showed it on the screen. Was very surprised when it was called otherwise. It would be better to ditch that system and have two umpires there to discuss

  On 20/04/2014 at 23:10, Demon Disciple said:

The Ablett free kick was an absolute farce. But what was just as bad was that goal-line decision for the Suns. The replay with the top left screen clearly showed the ball took a massive deflection once passing the Suns fists.

I'm also not a fan this year of pinging a bloke when there are about 4 blokes all trying to get the ball, with the umpire saying you've gotta try to get it out. How about they try and get it out with another 4 guys after the ball.

It looks like they are starting to reward the tackler again, after most of this year, they wave their arms in the air like muppets. About time incorrect disposal was brought back in to the game.

YES!! If you don't kick, or handball it, free kick. None of this "trying".